Background: This present research was designed for comparing coronary artery disease (CAD) patient outcomes following minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (MICS) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods: From 2014-2017, 679 CAD patients underwent MICS (n=281) or CABG (n=398) and were evaluated for the present study. Patient data were analyzed using 1:1 propensity score-matched assessment and a multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model, and primary study achievements comprised major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death, heart failure (HF), revascularization, and stroke. The median follow-up period was 2.68 years. Results: CABG patients exhibited a trend towards higher cumulative overall rates of MACCEs at 2 years (CABG: 6.2% vs. MICS: 3.8%) and 4 years (CABG: 9.3% vs. MICS: 7.6%) [adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 1.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-5.39 for CABG vs. MICS; P=0.687], although this difference was not significant. No significant differences in 2- or 4-year cardiac death rates were observed between groups (CABG: 3.5%, 5.6% vs. MICS 2.8%, 2.8%; adjusted HR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.03-1.81 for CABG vs. MICS; P=0.160). Further, there existed no discrepancies in rates of MI (P=1.000), HF (adjusted HR: 4.76; 95% CI: 0.01-6.40 for CABG vs. MICS; P=0.996), stroke (adjusted HR: 9.58; 95% CI: 0.11-25.24 for CABG vs. MICS; P=0.320), or repeated revascularization (adjusted HR: 1.71; 95% CI: 0.01-7.21 for CABG vs. MICS; P=0.631) when comparing these patient groups. In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, patients that were male (adjusted HR: 5.28; 95% CI: 1.48-18.83; P=0.010) and cases with a history of previous MI epsiodes (adjusted HR: 3.20; 95% CI: 1.09-9.37; P=0.034) were found to be at a higher risk of MACCEs. Conclusions: Follow-up data indicated that the MICS and CABG treatments could achieve similar outcomes. 2022 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.
Background: This present research was designed for comparing coronary artery disease (CAD) patient outcomes following minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (MICS) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods: From 2014-2017, 679 CAD patients underwent MICS (n=281) or CABG (n=398) and were evaluated for the present study. Patient data were analyzed using 1:1 propensity score-matched assessment and a multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model, and primary study achievements comprised major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death, heart failure (HF), revascularization, and stroke. The median follow-up period was 2.68 years. Results: CABG patients exhibited a trend towards higher cumulative overall rates of MACCEs at 2 years (CABG: 6.2% vs. MICS: 3.8%) and 4 years (CABG: 9.3% vs. MICS: 7.6%) [adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 1.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-5.39 for CABG vs. MICS; P=0.687], although this difference was not significant. No significant differences in 2- or 4-year cardiac death rates were observed between groups (CABG: 3.5%, 5.6% vs. MICS 2.8%, 2.8%; adjusted HR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.03-1.81 for CABG vs. MICS; P=0.160). Further, there existed no discrepancies in rates of MI (P=1.000), HF (adjusted HR: 4.76; 95% CI: 0.01-6.40 for CABG vs. MICS; P=0.996), stroke (adjusted HR: 9.58; 95% CI: 0.11-25.24 for CABG vs. MICS; P=0.320), or repeated revascularization (adjusted HR: 1.71; 95% CI: 0.01-7.21 for CABG vs. MICS; P=0.631) when comparing these patient groups. In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, patients that were male (adjusted HR: 5.28; 95% CI: 1.48-18.83; P=0.010) and cases with a history of previous MI epsiodes (adjusted HR: 3.20; 95% CI: 1.09-9.37; P=0.034) were found to be at a higher risk of MACCEs. Conclusions: Follow-up data indicated that the MICS and CABG treatments could achieve similar outcomes. 2022 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.
Authors: Marc Ruel; Masood A Shariff; Harry Lapierre; Nikhil Goyal; Carole Dennie; Scott M Sadel; Benjamin Sohmer; Joseph T McGinn Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2013-10-30 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Friedrich W Mohr; Marie-Claude Morice; A Pieter Kappetein; Ted E Feldman; Elisabeth Ståhle; Antonio Colombo; Michael J Mack; David R Holmes; Marie-angèle Morel; Nic Van Dyck; Vicki M Houle; Keith D Dawkins; Patrick W Serruys Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-02-23 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Anton Sabashnikov; Nikhil P Patil; Alexander Weymann; Prashant N Mohite; Bartlomiej Zych; Diana García Sáez; Aron-Frederik Popov; Thorsten Wahlers; Thorsten Wittwer; Jens Wippermann; Mohamed Amrani; Richard Trimlett; André R Simon; John Pepper; Toufan Bahrami Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2014-07-26 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Michael E Farkouh; Michael Domanski; Lynn A Sleeper; Flora S Siami; George Dangas; Michael Mack; May Yang; David J Cohen; Yves Rosenberg; Scott D Solomon; Akshay S Desai; Bernard J Gersh; Elizabeth A Magnuson; Alexandra Lansky; Robin Boineau; Jesse Weinberger; Krishnan Ramanathan; J Eduardo Sousa; Jamie Rankin; Balram Bhargava; John Buse; Whady Hueb; Craig R Smith; Victoria Muratov; Sameer Bansilal; Spencer King; Michel Bertrand; Valentin Fuster Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-11-04 Impact factor: 91.245